JohnGalt78
Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2018
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 42
I wanted to add that the back flap was torn off of the envelope. This is where I always write my return address. I think the previously mailed envelope was found, back flap torn off and Rachel written in the front left corner.Well, technically, even in Europe (at least the part of it that I live in) A4 was likely also not very common... as far as special (meaning more or less but somewhat decorative) stationary went. Those were indeed small - and sometimes varied in size a bit (those sold in sets with envelopes that fitted it best with just one fold).
So envelope 3,625'' x 6,5''
Most common paper size 8,5'' x 11
So like this:
View attachment 399978
Whole page folded once wouldn't fit, folded twice still wouldn't fit - but since it's visible that there was additional folding just below the note... it looks like you're spot on with the sizes and that there is absolutely nothing unusual here.
And this certainly does not explain what's going on with that claim of note not fitting the envelope.
Cause it looks like it fits perfectly. Folding on the actual letter implies that it would fit.
Additionally Renee's father said that it absolutely looked like the note arrived in that envelope.
So there is nothing to it.
View attachment 399980
And the second "BIG" thing is the use of pencil. Plenty of reputable sources claimed that letter was written in pencil but envelope in pen, some other claimed the opposite... and I rabbitholed about it in the past. Just to realize, fairly recently that (after making all the zooms I could + some comments) that:
THE NOTE IS WRITTEN IN PEN (with black ink)
THE ENVELOPE IS ALSO WRITTEN IN PEN (with black ink)
And what's written in PENCIL is ONLY the name "RACHEL" in the upper left corner of the envelope, nothing more.
But this doesn't really change that much as long as the theories go... or maybe it does?
Cause there is no logical reason why someone writing a note and adressing an envelope would just suddenly change the writing tool. It's not like they ran out of ink (at least nothing implies that).
So that person either:
a) already had an envelope adressed TO Rachel at easy grab,
b) already had an envelope left BY Rachel at easy grab,
c) finished with writing, left the location and thought last moment that it's going to look better if the envelope will have Rachel's signature on it.
Back to other weird "BIG" claims about the letter.
Cause it was and still is widely discussed that postmark may be forged, smeared, made up, stolen, making the letter being send from different locations...
As far as I know debunked in the past (in this thread) by the user who said that there is nothing odd in this specific postmark and it looks exactly like other mail stamped at SS post office.
So... noting to it, just mailed at SS and delivered on 24th.
Disagreement on the likelyness of that - having a piece of mail, left at the post office or post box late night of 23rd or early morning 24th arriving in the morning hours of the 24th of December 1974.
People say that it's either:
1. Completely ridiculous, cause:
a) it'd take much longer to deliver,
b) even now it takes few days for a letter mailed from same city to arrive,
c) Christmas,
2. Completely possible and nothing unusual, cause:
a) could happen that it took few days, could happen that it ended up delivered in the matter of hours,
b) it used to be much more efficient, better organised and faster back then that it is now cause people were sending much more mail,
c) days before holidays were not surprising some post offices who were set hard on delivering much more mail than usual.
And yes, Renee's dad said that it's impossible with reasons and experience he gained... years after it happened. He wasn't referring to the 70's. And it being highely unlikely to happen in '90s, '00s or '10s doesn't mean that it was as unlikely in early '70s. Same with postman having his route in Minot are afternoon years after. In early '70s the area of delivery could be different. Mail could be delivered twice a day even. And especially cause it was 24th, it seems more not less likely (IMO) that delivery would happen sooner than later.
Obviously I can't tell for sure, but judging by the fact that other weird claims about the letter watered down to nothing, I think that most likely we have:
And pushing some red herrings aside the remaining odd stuff are:
- A forged note,
- written in black pen,
- written on commonly used size of paper,
- folded in usual and logical way that letters were usually folded,
- mailed sometime at night of the 23/24th of December 1974 or in early hours of 24th,
- in post office near/at Seminary South (the Mall),
- postmarked by the SS post office in same way that all other mail was stamped there then,
- mailed in standard-sized envelope,
- adressed in usual way, with correct adress of Thomas Trlica written by black pen on it,
- delivered in the morning of 24th of December 1974
For me and maybe just for me those phrases are ruling out the possibility that Debra wrote it.
- One of the two phrases used in the note "I'm going to catch it" ("to be severely reprimanded, punished or beaten") - supposedly written by Rachel.
IMO it kinda implies an interesting state of mind.
Cause the story here is: I'm going to Houston. Well... WE are going to Houston. I'm 17yo and I'm going to Houston with my best friend, 14yo Renee and 9yo Julie (her bf's younger sister and Renee's grandma's neighbour that I likely never met before). And I'm not going to tell you WHERE exactly I'm going and why. I'm not going to tell my family, Renee's family, Julie's family or anyone we know nothing. Also you know what? Instead of asking you to tell their parents that I'll do my best to keep them safe, I'll do my best to keep your car safe. You should know that it's in Sears upper lot.
This is a person who's imagining (maybe unconciously) that scenario in their head.
And instead of the fear and heartbreak of Renee and Julie disappearing so suddenly and missing Christmas with their families focuses only on the punishment that is awaiting Rachel for organising/causing that trip.- Second of the two phrases used in the note "Sears upper lot".
Majority of people discussing it tend to agree that's unusual phrasing for a 17yo girl, that would be more expected to say something more like "parking near/at Sear's".- Inconsistent handwriting.
- The name "Rachel" written in pencil, on the envelope.
I don't want to sound sexist, but I will sound sexist.
Cause Debra is a woman. Then kinda still more girl than a woman, but a woman.
And women, no matter if they're sociopaths or not, no matter if they're capable of murdering someone, being an accomplice or helping in doing a cover-up for the murder with whatever motive they tend to have quite a good idea of how human emotions work.
That also rules out the - not so popular suspect in the letter forging, but mentioned here and there - Fran Arnold.
Cause she's not only a woman but also a mother.
What mother, while trying to fake a note that's meant to be as an explanation of the disappearance of three young girls would not make it sound... a bit less than like "fellow human" authored it?
From a woman I'd expect things like:
Not "I know I'll be punished" and "go get your car".
- "I'm sorry"
- "I'll explain everything when we'll be back"
- "Please, tell their parents that I had no other choice than to take them with me and I'm sorry"
- "I'll keep us safe"
- and so on.
IMO there is no chance that any woman wrote this. Not Rachel, not Renee, not Debra, not Fran.
This was written by someone:
First three could still point at stranger. 4 and 5 are ruling that out.
- who's male,
or a female who had absolutely nothing to say about it and was forced to write it,- who knew TT's address,
or had a way to learn it from somewhere,- who knew where the car is,
- who had access to an envelope signed by Rachel (less likely)
or was in possession of an envelope previously signed and used by Rachel to leave something in the envelope (less likely)
or was in possession of an envelope previously used or meant to hold a message for Rachel (most likely),- who had that envelope at easy grab
What's left?
Someone with easy access to such envelope. That could reasonably exist only:
and way, way, waaay less likely but theoretically also:
- in the house at Minot,
But... isn't the placement of that name kinda unusual?
- at the Arnold's home (if they were kind of people that tend to leave themselves messages, money, checks or documents in envelopes instead of passing it directly - but where they? I have no idea but doubt that)
- inside the car.
Envelope addressed TO Rachel should have her name more like this:
View attachment 399993
And envelope left BY Rachel should have somebody else's name there and possibly her name in the corner.
So like this:
View attachment 399994
Since all the odd, weird, strange, unusual, mysteriouzzz things about the letter (sizing, arrival, and "Tommy") seem to be watering down into the most mondain explanations...
I think that the most mondain explanation of why would an envelope look like this:
View attachment 399992
is that it was either:
- left by someone who wasn't thinking much about it while leaving the note,
- was meant to have just this one corner sticking out while left somewhere,
- signed by Rachel and left in a spot where only one person could get it.
There is also that assumption that got blown out of proportion and was based on I-have-no-idea-what - that "Rachel would write "Tommy" not "Thomas", cause she used to call him "Tommy" and nobody called him "Thomas" so it had to be written by someone who had no slightest clue about the dynamic here, and that Thomas was called "Tommy".
Isn't that pretty ridiculous?
Unless she previously used USPS to mail dozens of letters to "Tommy" not "Thomas" there is nothing weird in putting full, formal name on an envelope that's supposed to go through postal service.
Sounds kinda like someone really tried hard to reason why it's more likely that stranger wrote it than someone who had access to that mysterious, insider knowledge that she called him "Tommy".
I know that I'm restating some obvious stuff and things that was already told, but I wanted to make it clear for myself.
So, allegedly Fran was first to claim that it doesn't look like Rachel's handwriting. And, also, allegedly "Tommy" later also agreed with that. None of them that I know of claimed to recognise the envelope and share their doubts to the accord "wait, it looks like the envelope I saw before at (...) someone stole it!" so I guess nobody had that thought or didn't have any interest in sharing it.
Majority of clues hints at "Tommy" writing the note.
Multiple whitnesses placed him at the mall in late night hours of 23'rd - so at least then he would have no issue putting it into one of post boxes (but that could be done earlier).
There are other possibilities but those are considerable only after dismissing all the confidence from writing analysis expert - theoretically she could be wrong, but it's more likely that she wasn't.
So... we have like 95% (or higher) chance that "Tommy" wrote the note and nothing/not much to support theories like "someone may tried to fake it, to make it look like he faked it".
Also, I have two special letters from an aunt saved that I received in the 70’s. Both are in a smaller standard envelope, both written on smaller lined tablet paper folded in thirds and one is written in pencil which is still very legible. I think the smaller standard sized envelopes and lined tablet paper were more common in the 60’s and 70’s than they are today. I rarely see that sized envelope anymore. I agree a Christmas card wouldn’t have been written in pencil but a letter might have been. I also believe everything RW said.
